From my perspective, I think the arguments in the Dred Scott case are similar in a way to the earlier ones over the scope of national power, but I also think it weakens the federal government in a way. By ruling in favor of Sandford, it caused a void on the Missouri Compromise to come into affect. This was put in place by the federal government and now after a Missouri state case ruling, it has to be voided away. This shows that states powers are kind of stronger than the federal government because they made them change the rules they put in place in the first place. The federal government did not allow slavery in that specific area, but it occurred anyway. This is where I get my similarity in the arguments because in the end of both of …show more content…
Sanford case was one of the worst decisions made by the Supreme Court in history. After reading and learning all about the case completely, I came to the conclusion that the Scott family should have been granted their freedom in the first place and should have never had the ruling overturned by the Missouri Court system. The Supreme Court decision against Dred Scott consisted of a few flaws that took away from Scott’s chance at ever becoming a citizen of the United States. Based on the time period, in my opinion I believe the Court’s substantive decision to go against Dred Scott was made to protect the country, but was highly influenced by the “slightly” flawed legal reasoning of Chief Justice Roger …show more content…
This would have drawn a lot of attention in the African American community and caused slaves to exercise the option of suing their owners for the same rights as Dred Scott and his family. The Supreme Court also needed to think about the idea that by deciding in favor of Scott, it could also anger thousands of American citizens all around the states as well. Especially those in the South, where the decision was held, and where slaveholding is a big part of the society. The Supreme Court can only do so much, it is going to upset many people with a lot of its’ decisions, but it also going to make a lot of people happy as well. The Supreme Court cannot really resolve the central political conflicts that occur in society at all. The only thing they can do is rule in the favor of certain cases and deal with the outcomes that come in the end. In my opinion, I think a lot of people barely even know about the Supreme Court at all, so any influences they really try to have on the political world in society do not get looked
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
The Dred Scott decision involved two slaves, Dred Scott and his wife, who originated from one of the recognized slave states, Missouri, but they were relocated to settle in Wisconsin, a state where slavery was prohibited. In 1846, Scott filed a lawsuit and “sued for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in a free state and a free territory had made him free.” In 1854, Scott’s “case ultimately went to the Supreme Court.” By landing in the Supreme Court, the justices ruled seven to two against the Dred Scott and his wife for multiple reasons. One main reason that the court specified was that whether African Americans are enslaved or not, they were never recognized as citizens of the United States. Therefore, the justices believed that the case should not have been heard or discussed in the Supreme Court to begin with. The second reason was that regardless of any African American being transferred to a free state, does not necessarily change their social status. Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a compromise that outlawed slavery north of the 36˚30’ latitude line, is unconstitutional because the Congress declared that they had “no power to ban slavery from any territory.” The decision was critical due to increasing the North population’s unease, and their concern that the South will begin to transport slaves to freed states, which will
The antebellum period was filled with important Supreme Court rulings that had an influential impact on the U.S. The case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford is a perfect example of a ruling that highly affected the U.S. In Dred Scott vs. Sandford the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether a slave or free, were not American citizens and were unable to sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery and in the U.S territories. In addition to, the Court also ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected the rights of slave owners because slaves were not classified as humans but as pieces of property. The devastating outcome of this court case had multiple effects on the U.S.; it gave more power to the National Government, it took away some of the sovereignty of states, overturned the Missouri Compromise, instigated the Civil War, and opened eyes of the Northerners.
Dred Scott v. Sanford is notoriously famous for its pro-slavery verdict which demonstrates the white superiority and racial attitude the Supreme Court had while making the decision. This case was only the first in setting the precedence of the social hardships African Americans had to go through in order to gain civil and human
Dred Scott v. Stanford is a case in which an African-American man sued for his freedom. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson purchased a slave. He moved to the Wisconsin Territory with Dred Scott, his slave. Slavery was banned there due to the Missouri Compromise. Because Emerson was in the army, he would go away for long periods of time, and Scott would get small paying jobs while Emerson was away. In 1843 Dr. Emerson passed away, and left Dred Scott, Scott’s wife, and their children to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, Dred Scott attempted to use the money he had earned over the years to buy his family’s freedom from Sanford, but she would not accept the offer. When Dred Scott was refused his freedom, he decided to sue Sanford for his freedom in a state court. His argument was that he was legally free because he had been living in a territory were slavery had been outlawed. In 1850, Scott was declared free, but Eliza Sanford did not want to deal with the case, so she left the Scott family to her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. During the time of the case, Scott’s wages were being withheld, and he was owed money from Mr. Sanford. He was not willing to pay Dred Scott his money, so he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overruled the state court’s decision, ruling in favor of Sanford.
Lastly, Dred Scott Case with the United States Supreme court fought freedom for the slaves in the American Legal System. In 1857, the court 's decision denied his plea and determined that no Negro,a term used to portray anybody that was African blood, was or could ever be a citizen. This decision also the reason for the Missouri Compromise, which set restrictions on slavery in certain U.S territories. The Northerners were outraged and the Dred Scott case became a reason to elect president Abraham Lincoln in 1860
Dredd Scott decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1857(Johnson). In the simplest terms this decision stripped US citizenship from any Negro, living in any state of existence, free or slave. Also Dredd Scott deemed the Missouri Compromise Unconstitutional (which is one cause of the South succeeding in 1863.)
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
These slave “fathers” killed, and tortured their “children”, just like the wolf found a way to justify, eating the newborn lamb, undeterred by its innocence. Slaves face further mistreatment through the three-fifths compromise, in which three in every five slaves count as citizens towards the population of the state; the aforementioned compromise, allowed southerners to disregard the slave’s human rights, in a legal sense. In the Dred Scott case, a famous case in which a slave sued for his freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared: “Dred Scott had no legal standing in court because blacks could not be citizens of the United States.” In the years leading up to the war an abolitionist’s movement was starting in the north that openly spoke out against slavery, but it was still not the popular idea. While most northerners were anti-slavery, they still had issue with race, making them more in favor of slavery not spreading to northern
In 1857, the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case went before a pro-slavery United States Supreme Court. Scott claimed that he had lived as a slave in free state and territory. The high court’s decision was that he was a slave and that the law assuring that slavery would not be allowed in the new territories of the United States was unconstitutional. Because of the court’s decision, it helped accelerate the Civil War. Because of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Northerners tha...
‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ - Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott Decision. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B Taney made the Dred Scott Decision on March 6th, 1860. They also declared the missouri compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. This all caused northerners and abolitionists to get angry at the south and the supreme court. This decision showed where the government stood on the issue of slavery and abolition and further fueled the flame of war between the north and south. Scott took his slave owner to court to sue for his fr...
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
...he [lack] of jurisdiction in that court.” (SD) This shows that, Chief Justice Taney and the others had decided that finding the other court had no ability to rule as it had was all they needed to address. This also shows, how in a bias court (pro-slavery) that a decision could be tainted. In conclusion, the Supreme Court decided Dred Scott could remain a slave, and that they did not support the limiting of slavery. 225
In Conclusion, the decision handed down by The United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford. That African American slaves "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." This was a grave mistake made by the Supreme Court and could only add fuel to the fire of the issue of slavery.
The Supreme Court was important in both suppressing and aiding the Civil Rights Movement. However, decisions taken by the President, the continued white opposition and improvements in media communications also had an effect. Although all were important, the Civil Rights movement alone would have reached the same end without the help of the Supreme Court, and the devotion of its many members and leaders is the major factor in advancing Civil Rights.